Trending Now

Answers

Best Answer: I'm sure way down the list, there is a socialist candidate trying to run for president. I have no idea about who that may be.

In general, around the world...socialism is defined as a system where the major industries that provide basic needs are owned by the govt and accessible to all equally. Other things are owned by private businesses.

Some things you see in a socialist country: universal education, universal health care, govt owned utilities and logistics companies (such as railroads and airlines) and govt owned media, and fuel processors. I think this may even include major food growers but I'm not sure. I think the food retailers are private companies most of the time. I think in some socialist countries, the religious organizations are also in cahoots with the govt or at least are govt funded. For example, everyone born in England is automatically recorded to be Anglican...everyone in Germany is recorded to be Catholic...the choice however, is yours to practice, choose another faith, or not practice religion at all.

Every citizen in a socialist country has equal access to the services that the govt provides, and if you are in that business (such as a doctor), the govt is your employer. This is why taxes are so high. It's like your taxes include an all inclusive insurance policy, among other things, that includes everyone instead of just those who wants the coverage or chose that provider.

Things may vary country to country.

The argument against socialism is that when govt steps in to run these things, the industry has nothing to compete against to keep it in check, resulting in lesser quality, inefficiency, higher prices, and no incentive to complete research to advance that field.

The argument for socialism is that with the govt ensuring certain things like medical care and education...you have a good start on being a productive citizen without making financial excuses for it, then you can do whatever you want with your life to make your own money. In addition, socialist theory is that if everyone needs a certain thing, like phone service, roads, or access to travel, or the right to a newspaper...the govt can sponsor it and streamline the process. In the case of socialized health care...it would be a govt sponsored insurance company where everyone pays in, at lower premiums, to pay for the needs of whomever is sick at that moment. In a private system, the larger the pool, the lower the premiums. So if everyone is paying into the same pool, theoretically the premiums will be as low as they can get.

First off Democracies are open to all forms of Government depending on which party is elected, if a Socialist were elected it would be time to take up arms against said Government.

In Socialism it is driven by the idea that the State provides everything to the people and the people are all made equal be the redistribution of the gains made. This might sound wonderful, but to acomplish this people must give up their freedom of choice, the State decides what job you have, what doctor you can visit and when, what car to drive and when and where you can drive it, where to live and with how many people, goods are rationed so everyone can have them, but the diversity and supply of goods are weak, economics are disasterous in Socialism, it is a non competitive market supply is always lower than demand. Simply everyone cannot be supplied with all things so some have to go without, examples are USSR, and currently N. Korea. Socialism is an effort to make everyone equal just ends up making everyone (except those in power) equally miserable. There is no free thought or speach because the State can't allow itself to be undermined because it would lose it's power over the people. The other sticking point about Socialism is simply that if you work in a factory for 8 hours a day, and someone else refuses to work at all and stays home all day, you both end up with exactly the same thing, so there is no real reason to work hard you gain nothing from it.

FINLAND, SWEDEN, SWITZERLAND and NORWAY do provide interesting studies of how their socialist governments work for their populations.
http://flfl.essortment.com/governmentswede_rbfh.htm
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Finland+as+global+socialist+model%3F-a0139717170
http://www.anarchy.no/ija137.html

How Australia's Socialist Party see capitalism as an exploitation of under-developed nations and thus bring ills to those countries:
http://www.socialistpartyaustralia.org/archives/2006/11/16/how-capitalism-exploits-the-under-developed-world/

Unlike what Winston Churchill had preached, there have been nations with socialistic governments that work. A socialist system can only turn evil if the people do not keep check of their government and allow a Gestapo sort of political police to slowly establish to control the nation.

It's always easy for the clueless and fools to jump into the foregone conclusion that socialism is all completely bad. Like all systems, there are advantages and disadvantages... and systems do get switched with nations facing insecured economic times.

By the way, it's normally the capitalistic nations that try to occupy others to control their resources?

These all become government controlled as in a democracy. We on the other hand in case people forget are a republic.
No where in the constitution or in the bill of rights do our fore fathers use the word democracy because it will always lead to an Oligarchy. In a democracy 51% rule 49% in a republic we are all individuals and with individual liberty we are all governerd by Law and not a corrupt bunch of 51% that might be misled and the right doers of the 49% suffer.